House Resources Committee Hearing — June 21, 2006 — S1003

Introduction to House Resources Committee Hearing

Rep. Hayworth: The Committee on Resources will now come to order. The committee is meeting today for a legislative hearing on S1003, the Navajo Hopi Land Settlement Amendments of 2005. Under 4G of the Committee rules, any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the chairman and ranking minority member. This will allow for us to hear from our witnesses sooner and help members keep to their schedules. Therefore, if other members have statements, they can be included in the hearing record under unanimous consent. I am honored to have the opportunity to fill in for Chairman Pombo. He is at a meeting with the speaker, and we hope that he will join us shortly. But while I am in the chair, I would be happy to read for the record Chairman Pombo’s opening statement.

On behalf of the full committee, I would like to welcome everyone in attendance today including our witnesses. The issue we’re tackling today has a long history, involving primarily historic tribes that have called the desert Southwest home for hundreds if not thousands of years. Our hearing this morning will specifically focus on S1003 and its intensions, but we will surely touch on the deep and complex history that surrounds the debate regarding ownership of the lands in question, the role of the federal government, and the actions taken to resolve the issues first set forth in the Navajo Hopi Settlement Act that was passed in 1974. A serious examination of how to move forward legislatively on the issue of relocation specifically is long overdue in this committee. In fact, it’s been years since the House has held a hearing while the Senate has discussed the matter in multiple congressional sessions. Thus, our witnesses should be able to help us build uh to help us to build to a much more substantive record for action. The Senate has now passed S1003, doing so by unanimous consent and the measure has been referred to this committee. It has become increasingly clear that those affected by this legislation may have concerns on moving forward with this bill. We should be able to get a better indication on their recommendations for congressional action with this issue in through their testimony as I think most in Congress would agree that the issue of relocation and the federal role in this issue can be diminished in the coming years. To that end, recently Congressman Renzi (sounds like he’s calling him “Lorenzi”), who represents much of the Navajo Nation, has been drafting legislation in conjunction with both the Hopi and Navajo. Our hearing should start to ask some serious questions of relocation program and the best manner to move forward, including the concepts being put forth by Congressman Renzi who understands well the unique challenges Congress faces when tackling an issue with such long, historical nuances. Once again let me thank the witnesses for their testimony and time as some have flown across the country for our hearing today. Recognizing that Mr. Renzi would like to welcome some constituents who happen to be here testifying today as well as in the audience, and for purposes of full disclosure for the interim chair, if you will, today, my former constituents, let me yield the remainder of my time to my friend from the first District of Arizona for a brief statement. Mr. Renzi.

Rep. Renzi: Thank you, Congressman Hayworth. I grateful that Chairman Pombo, and my colleagues all today who have helped me with this hearing and pulling it together. I want to thank those folks particularly President Shirley and Chairman uh Sydney for you coming all the way out here today, too, and for traveling so far.

This is an historical hearing. It’s been some time since we addressed this issue. Back in 1974 Congress passed legislation that ultimately mandated the relocation of thousands of members of the Navajo Nation and the Hopi tribe, and affected the lives of many, many thousands of people. Um the end result was that about 15,000 Navajos were forced to move from Hopi land and a few hundred Hopis were forced to move ta (sic) Navajo land. Often families were forced to leave, and they uh, land they had occupied for generations and generations. Members of both the Navajo Nation and Hopi tribe were hurt in the process. To fund the relocation effort, Congress appropriated approximately 500 million dollars over 30 years to provide alternative housing to those individuals who were forced out. At this point um the process, we are looking at, at the potential for an agreement between the Hopis and the Navajos. Um and at this time only a few hundred Navajos continue to reside on Hopi land.

The Senate bill would abolish the Office of the Navajo Hopi Indian Relocation in 2008. This Office has the responsibility for relocating individuals right now. It would also transfer those duties to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. While few dispute that the Office should be closed some times maybe in the future, the issues do remain. Should the Office be closed in 2008 as proposed by the bill? Should it remain in tact for a period to allow all those who been promised benefits to receive them? Should the Bureau of Indian Affairs simply assume this responsibility? Additionally, how many individuals were forced to move and yet have not yet received any benefits? Should the small number of Navajos remaining on Hopi land be allowed to stay or be relocated? This information is critical in determining what steps Congress should take in the future as we look, move forward.

The effects of the benefit, Bennett Freeze on infrastructure, roads, emergency services, and the effects on the individuals, in my opinion, has been deplorable. The conditions are deplorable out there. If you spend time up in Tuba City, in that area, which we do, you find for yourself conditions of uh third world at times. And so I think we gotta to be careful what we do here. And I’m looking forward to really hearin’ from both president and the chairman on their ideas as we wrestle with and as we decide what to do with the Office of Relocation. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you yielding to me, and I’ll uh submit uh my written testimony uh for the record if you don’t mind.

Chairman: And I thank my colleague from Arizona, and now I’m very honored to turn, it seems like old times, as we worked on a variety of subjects, my dear friend, the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Michigan, for an opening statement.

Rep. Kildee: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ve enjoyed working very productively with you for a number of years now on Indian justice, Indian sovereignty, it’s always a pleasure to share a hearing with you. We’re asked to address some, a problem, really which to a great extent, is a problem the federal government played a role, a major role in um in creating. I was not here in 1974. I came here in 1976. So I’ve been here for about 30 years. And we’ve been trying to work on this program. I think we’ve had a lot of good will on this committee. I’m not sure we’ve always had lot wisdom to go along with that good will. And if we can find some wisdom to go along with the good will, perhaps we can find a solution to this problem that will be based upon justice to everyone involved. We don’t have any Solomon’s here in Congress but uh we can pray that we get more wisdom than what we’ve had in the past. But we certainly have to involve the people who are who will be affected by this and at that, Mr. Chairman, I’m anxious to hear from the witnesses.

Chairman: I thank the gentleman from Michigan for that invocation of Solomonic proportions, and the chair also welcomes our friend from American Samoa, and my colleague from Arizona on the minority side.